Written in July–August 1915

Published in August 1915 in Geneva as a separate pamphlet by the editorial board of the newspaper "Social-Democrat"

Printed from the text of the pamphlet

Preface to the 1st
(Foreign) Edition

The war has already lasted a year. Our party determined its attitude toward it at the very beginning, in a manifest of the Central Committee compiled in September 1914 and published (after sending it to members of the CC and responsible representatives of our party in Russia and receiving their consent) on November 1, 1914 in No. 33 of the Central Organ of our party "Social-Democrat"{45}. Subsequently, in No. 40 (March 29, 1915) were published the resolutions of the Bern Conference{46}, which give a more precise exposition of our principles and our tactics.

At present, revolutionary sentiment among the masses is clearly growing in Russia. In other countries, signs of this same phenomenon are observed everywhere, despite the stifling of the revolutionary aspirations of the proletariat by the majority of official social-democratic parties, which have sided with their own governments and their own bourgeoisie. This state of affairs makes it especially urgent to publish a pamphlet that sums up social-democratic tactics in relation to the war. Reprinting in full the above-mentioned party documents, we provide them with brief explanations, trying to take into account all the main arguments for bourgeois and proletarian tactics, expressed in literature and in party gatherings.

Preface to the 2nd Edition

The present pamphlet was written in the summer of 1915, just before the Zimmerwald Conference. It also appeared in German and French and was completely reprinted in Norwegian in the organ of Norwegian social-democratic youth. The German edition of the pamphlet was smuggled illegally into Germany—into Berlin, Leipzig, Bremen and other cities, where it was distributed illegally by supporters of the Zimmerwald Left and the group of Karl Liebknecht. The French edition was printed illegally in Paris and distributed there by French Zimmerwaldists. The Russian edition reached Russia in very limited quantities and in Moscow was copied out by hand by workers.

We now reprint this pamphlet in full, as a document. The reader must constantly remember that the pamphlet was written in August 1915. This should be remembered especially in those passages dealing with Russia: Russia was still then tsarist, Romanov Russia…

Published in the pamphlet of the 1918 edition

Printed from the text of the pamphlet

# Chapter I. The Principles of Socialism and War, 1914–1915

## The Attitude of Socialists to Wars

Socialists have always condemned wars between nations as a barbarous and bestial affair. But our attitude to war is in principle different from that of bourgeois pacifists (advocates and preachers of peace) and anarchists. We differ from the former in that we understand the inevitable connection between wars and the class struggle within a country, we understand the impossibility of eliminating wars without eliminating classes and creating socialism, and moreover, we fully recognize the legitimacy, progressiveness, and necessity of civil wars, that is, wars of the oppressed class against the oppressing class, of slaves against slaveholders, of enserfed peasants against landowners, of hired workers against the bourgeoisie. Both from pacifists and from anarchists, we Marxists differ in that we recognize the necessity of a historical (from the point of view of Marx's dialectical materialism) examination of each war separately. In history, there have repeatedly been wars which, despite all their horrors, brutalities, suffering and torments, inevitably connected with every war, were progressive—that is, they brought benefit to the development of humanity, helping to destroy particularly harmful and reactionary institutions (for example, autocracy or serfdom), the most barbarous despotisms in Europe (Turkish and Russian). Therefore, one must examine the historical particularities of the present war.

## The Historical Types of Wars in Modern Times

The modern epoch in the history of humanity was opened by the great French Revolution. From that time until the Paris Commune, from 1789 to 1871, one type of war was wars of a bourgeois-progressive, national-liberation character. In other words, the principal content and historical significance of these wars was the overthrow of absolutism and feudalism, their undermining, the overthrow of national oppression by foreign powers. Therefore, these were progressive wars, and all honest, revolutionary democrats, as well as all socialists, in such wars always sympathized with the success of that country (that is, that bourgeoisie) which facilitated the overthrow or undermining of the most dangerous foundations of feudalism, absolutism, and oppression of alien peoples. For example, in the revolutionary wars of France there was an element of robbery and conquest of foreign lands by the French, but this in no way changes the fundamental historical significance of these wars, which destroyed and shook feudalism and absolutism throughout the entire old, enserfed Europe. In the Franco-Prussian war, Germany robbed France, but this does not change the fundamental historical significance of this war, which liberated tens of millions of the German people from feudal fragmentation and oppression by two despots, the Russian tsar and Napoleon III.

## The Distinction Between Offensive and Defensive War

The epoch of 1789–1871 left deep marks and revolutionary memories. Until the overthrow of feudalism, absolutism, and national oppression by foreign powers, there could be no question of the development of the proletariat's struggle for socialism. When speaking of the legitimacy of "defensive" war in relation to wars of such an epoch, socialists always had in mind precisely these aims, which amounted to revolution against medievalism and serfdom. Socialists have always understood by "defensive" war a "just" war in this sense (V. Liebknecht once expressed it precisely this way){217}. Only in this sense did socialists recognize and recognize now the legitimacy, progressiveness, justice of "defense of the fatherland" or "defensive" war. For example, if tomorrow Morocco declared war on France, India on England, Persia or China on Russia, etc., these would be "just," "defensive" wars, regardless of who attacked first, and every socialist would sympathize with the victory of the oppressed, dependent, disenfranchised states against the oppressive, slaveholding, plundering "great" powers.

But imagine that a slaveholder, having 100 slaves, wages war with a slaveholder having 200 slaves, for a more "just" redistribution of slaves. It is clear that applying the concept of "defensive" war or "defense of the fatherland" to such a case would be historical falsehood and practically simply a deception of the common people, the petty bourgeoisie, the dark masses by cunning slaveholders. It is precisely thus that the present, imperialist bourgeoisie now deceives nations through "national" ideology and the concept of defense of the fatherland in the contemporary war between slaveholders for the strengthening and reinforcement of slavery.

## The Present War is an Imperialist War

Almost everyone recognizes the present war as imperialist, but for the most part they distort this concept, or apply it to one side only, or still insinuate the possibility that this war might have a bourgeois-progressive, national-liberation significance. Imperialism is the highest stage of the development of capitalism, reached only in the twentieth century. Capitalism has become cramped in the old national states, without the formation of which it could not have overthrown feudalism. Capitalism has so developed concentration that entire branches of industry have been seized by syndicates, trusts, unions of capitalist billionaires, and almost the entire globe has been divided among these "masters of capital," in the form of colonies or through the entanglement of foreign countries in thousands of threads of financial exploitation. Free trade and competition have been replaced by strivings toward monopoly, toward the seizure of lands for capital investment, for the export of raw materials, etc. From a liberator of nations, which capitalism was in the struggle against feudalism, imperialist capitalism has become the greatest oppressor of nations. Capitalism has transformed from a progressive force into a reactionary one; it has developed the productive forces to such an extent that humanity now faces either transition to socialism or years and even decades of armed struggle between the "great" powers for the artificial preservation of capitalism through colonies, monopolies, privileges, and national oppressions of all kinds.

## War Among the Greatest Slaveholders for the Preservation and Strengthening of Slavery

To elucidate the significance of imperialism, let us adduce precise data on the division of the world among the so-called "great" (that is, successful in great robbery) powers:

## Division of the World by the "Great" Slaveholding Powers:

[Table showing colonial possessions]

From this it is clear how nations that fought mostly under the leadership of others for freedom in 1789–1871 have now transformed, after 1876, on the basis of highly developed and "over-ripe" capitalism, into oppressors and enslavers of the majority of the world's population and nations. From 1876 to 1914, six "great" powers plundered 25 million square kilometers, that is, a territory two and a half times larger than all of Europe! Six powers enslave over half a billion (523 million) population in colonies. For every 4 inhabitants of the "great" powers, there are 5 inhabitants in "their" colonies. And it is well known that colonies were conquered by fire and sword, that in colonies the population is treated brutally, that it is exploited in thousands of ways (through the export of capital, concessions, etc., deception in the sale of goods, subjection to the authorities of the "dominant" nation, and so forth and so on). Anglo-French bourgeoisie deceive the people, saying that they wage war for the freedom of peoples and Belgium: in reality they wage war for the preservation of the disproportionately plundered colonies they possess. German imperialists would immediately liberate Belgium, etc., if the English and French would "for God's sake" share their colonies with them. The peculiarity of the situation consists in the fact that in this war the fates of colonies are decided by war on the continent. From the point of view of bourgeois justice and national freedom (or the right of nations to exist), Germany would be unconditionally right against England and France, because it is "deprived" of colonies, its enemies oppress incomparably more nations than it does, and its ally Austria, the oppressed Slavs enjoy, without doubt, greater freedom than in tsarist Russia, this true "prison of nations." But Germany itself wages war not for liberation but for oppression of nations. It is not the business of socialists to help the younger and stronger robber (Germany) plunder the older and gorged robbers. Socialists must take advantage of the struggle between robbers to overthrow all of them. For this, socialists must first of all speak the truth to the people, namely, that this war is in a threefold sense a war of slaveholders for the strengthening of slavery. It is a war, firstly, for the strengthening of slavery in colonies through a more "just" division and further more "friendly" exploitation of them; secondly, for the strengthening of oppression over alien nations within the "great" powers themselves, because both Austria and Russia (Russia much more and much worse than Austria) are sustained only by such oppression, reinforcing it through war; thirdly, for the strengthening and prolongation of wage slavery, because the proletariat is split and crushed, while capitalists profit, enriching themselves on war, aggravating national prejudices and reinforcing the reaction, which has reared its head in all, even the freest and most republican countries.

## "War is the Continuation of Politics by Other (Namely: Violent) Means"

This famous saying belongs to one of the most profound writers on military questions, Clausewitz{218}. Marxists have always justly considered this proposition the theoretical foundation of views on the significance of each given war. Marx and Engels always looked at various wars precisely from this point of view.

Apply this view to the present war. You will see that for decades, almost half a century, the governments and ruling classes of England, France, Germany, Italy, Austria, and Russia have pursued a policy of plundering colonies, oppressing alien nations, suppressing the workers' movement. Precisely such a policy, only such, is being continued in the present war. In particular, both in Austria and in Russia the policy of both peacetime and wartime consists in the enslavement of nations, not in their liberation. On the contrary, in China, Persia, India, and other dependent countries, we have seen in the last few decades a policy of awakening tens and hundreds of millions of people to national life, liberating them from the oppression of reactionary "great" powers. War on such historical ground can even now be bourgeois-progressive, national-liberation.

It suffices to look at the present war from the point of view of the continuation in it of the policy of the "great" powers and the dominant classes within them to see at once the glaring ahistoricity, falsity, and hypocrisy of the opinion that one can justify the idea of "defense of the fatherland" in this war.

## The Example of Belgium

The social-chauvinists of the Triple (now Quadruple) Alliance{219} (in Russia, Plekhanov and Co.) most of all love to refer to the example of Belgium. But this example speaks against them. German imperialists shamelessly violated Belgium's neutrality, as belligerent states have always done everywhere, trampling on all treaties and obligations when necessary. Suppose that all states interested in observing international treaties declared war on Germany with a demand for the liberation and compensation of Belgium. In this case, the sympathy of socialists would certainly be on the side of Germany's enemies. However, the point is precisely that the war is being waged by the "Triple (and Quadruple) Alliance" not because of Belgium: this is perfectly well known, and only hypocrites conceal it. England is plundering Germany's colonies and Turkey, Russia is plundering Galicia and Turkey, France is seeking Alsace-Lorraine and even the left bank of the Rhine; with Italy, a treaty has been concluded dividing the spoils (Albania, Asia Minor); with Bulgaria and Romania there is haggling also over the division of spoils. On the basis of the present war of the present governments, one cannot help Belgium otherwise than by helping to strangle Austria or Turkey, etc.! What, then, has this to do with "defense of the fatherland"?? Therein lies the peculiarity of imperialist war, war between reactionary-bourgeois, historically obsolete governments, waged for the oppression of other nations. Whoever justifies participation in this war perpetuates imperialist oppression of nations. Whoever preaches the use of the present difficulties of governments for struggle for social revolution defends the true freedom of truly all nations, achievable only under socialism.

## What is Russia Fighting For?

In Russia, the newest type of capitalist imperialism has fully shown itself in the policy of tsarism toward Persia, Manchuria, Mongolia, but in general military and feudal imperialism prevails in Russia. Nowhere in the world is there such oppression of the majority of a country's population as in Russia: the Great Russians comprise only 43% of the population, that is, less than half, and all others are disenfranchised as foreigners. Of Russia's 170 million population, some 100 million are oppressed and disenfranchised. Tsarism wages war to seize Galicia and finally suppress the freedom of Ukrainians, to seize Armenia, Constantinople, etc. Tsarism sees in the war a means to divert attention from the growth of discontent within the country and to suppress the growing revolutionary movement. Now for every two Great Russians in Russia there are from two to three disenfranchised "foreigners": through war, tsarism strives to increase the number of nations oppressed by Russia, to consolidate their oppression, and thereby undermine the struggle for freedom even of the Great Russians themselves. The possibility of oppressing and plundering foreign peoples reinforces economic stagnation, because instead of the development of productive forces, the source of income is often semi-feudal exploitation of "foreigners." Thus, from Russia's standpoint, the war is distinguished by extreme reactionism and an anti-liberation character.

## What is Social-Chauvinism?

Social-chauvinism is the defense of the idea of "defense of the fatherland" in this war. From this idea follows, furthermore, the renunciation of class struggle during the war, voting for military credits, etc. In reality, social-chauvinists pursue an anti-proletarian, bourgeois policy, for in reality they are not defending "defense of the fatherland" in the sense of struggle against national oppression by foreigners, but the "right" of various "great" powers to plunder colonies and oppress foreign nations. Social-chauvinists repeat the bourgeois deception of the people, claiming that the war is being waged for the protection of freedom and the existence of nations, and thereby go over to the side of the bourgeoisie against the proletariat. Social-chauvinists include both those who justify and embellish the governments and bourgeoisie of one of the warring groups of powers, and those who, like Kautsky, recognize the equal right of socialists in all warring states to "defend the fatherland." Social-chauvinism, being in reality a defense of the privileges, advantages, plundering, and violence of "one's own" (or any) imperialist bourgeoisie, represents a complete betrayal of all socialist convictions and the decision of the international socialist congress in Basel.

## The Basel Manifesto

The Manifesto on War, adopted unanimously in 1912 in Basel, had precisely in mind that war between England and Germany with their present allies, which indeed broke out in 1914. The Manifesto directly states that no national interest can justify such a war, waged "for the profits of capitalists and the advantages of dynasties" on the basis of the imperialist, plundering policy of great powers. The Manifesto directly states that the war is dangerous "for governments" (all without exception), notes their fear of "proletarian revolution," points with complete clarity to the example of the Commune of 1871 and October–December 1905, that is, to the example of revolution and civil war. Thus, the Basel Manifesto precisely for this war establishes the tactics of revolutionary struggle of workers on an international scale against their own governments, tactics of proletarian revolution. The Basel Manifesto repeats the words of the Stuttgart Resolution, that in the event of the outbreak of war, socialists should use the "economic and political crisis" it creates for the "acceleration of the fall of capitalism," that is, should use the difficulties created for governments by the war and the indignation of the masses for socialist revolution.

The policy of social-chauvinists, their justification of the war from bourgeois-liberation points of view, their permission of "defense of the fatherland," voting for credits, entering ministries and so forth and so on, is direct betrayal of socialism, explained only, as we shall see below, by the victory of opportunism and national-liberal workers' policy within the majority of European parties.

## False References to Marx and Engels

Russian social-chauvinists (with Plekhanov at their head) refer to Marx's tactics in the war of 1870; German ones (like Lensch, David and Co.) refer to Engels's statements in 1891 about the necessity for German socialists to defend the fatherland in case of war with Russia and France together; finally, social-chauvinists like Kautsky, wishing to reconcile and legitimize international chauvinism, refer to the fact that Marx and Engels, condemning wars, nevertheless constantly, from 1854–1855 to 1870–1871 and 1876–1877, sided with this or that warring state, once war did break out.

All these references are a monstrous distortion of the views of Marx and Engels in deference to the bourgeoisie and opportunists, precisely as the writings of the anarchists Guillaume and Co. distort Marx and Engels's views to justify anarchism. The war of 1870–1871 was historically progressive from Germany's standpoint, while Napoleon III had not been defeated, because he, together with the tsar, had long oppressed Germany, supporting feudal fragmentation in it. And as soon as the war transformed into the plundering of France (annexation of Alsace and Lorraine), Marx and Engels decisively condemned the Germans. And at the beginning of this war, Marx and Engels approved the refusal of Bebel and Liebknecht to vote for credits and advised social-democrats not to merge with the bourgeoisie but to uphold the independent class interests of the proletariat. The transfer of the evaluation of this war, bourgeois-progressive and national-liberation, to the present imperialist war is mockery of truth. The same applies with even greater force to the war of 1854–1855 and all the wars of the nineteenth century, when there was neither present-day imperialism, nor ripened objective conditions for socialism, nor mass socialist parties in all the warring countries, that is, there were precisely none of those conditions from which the Basel Manifesto derived the tactics of "proletarian revolution" in connection with war between great powers. Whoever now refers to Marx's attitude toward the wars of the epoch of progressive bourgeoisie and forgets Marx's words: "workers have no fatherland"—words relating precisely to the epoch of reactionary, obsolete bourgeoisie, to the epoch of socialist revolution, shamelessly distorts Marx and substitutes a bourgeois point of view for the socialist one.

## The Collapse of the Second International

Socialists throughout the world solemnly declared in 1912 in Basel that they considered the coming European war a "criminal" and most reactionary affair of all governments, which should accelerate the crash of capitalism, inevitably generating revolution against it. War came, crisis came. Instead of revolutionary tactics, the majority of social-democratic parties pursued a reactionary course, siding with their own governments and their own bourgeoisie. This betrayal of socialism means the collapse of the Second (1889–1914) International, and we must understand what caused this collapse, what generated social-chauvinism, what gave it force.

## Social-Chauvinism is Completed Opportunism

Throughout the entire epoch of the Second International, a struggle raged within social-democratic parties everywhere between the revolutionary and opportunist wings. In a number of countries there was a split along this line (England, Italy, Holland, Bulgaria). No Marxist doubted that opportunism expressed bourgeois policy in the workers' movement, expressed the interests of the petty bourgeoisie and the alliance of an insignificant portion of embourgeoisified workers with "their own" bourgeoisie against the interests of the mass of proletarians, the mass of the oppressed.

The objective conditions of the late nineteenth century particularly strengthened opportunism, transforming the use of bourgeois legality into servility before it, creating a small stratum of bureaucracy and aristocracy of the working class, attracting many petty-bourgeois "fellow travelers" into the ranks of social-democratic parties.

War accelerated development, transforming opportunism into social-chauvinism, transforming the secret alliance of opportunists with the bourgeoisie into an open one. Thereupon military authorities everywhere introduced military regulations and a muzzle for the workers' mass, the old leaders of which almost to a man went over to the bourgeoisie.

The economic base of opportunism and social-chauvinism is one and the same: the interests of an insignificant stratum of privileged workers and petty bourgeoisie, upholding their privileged position, their "right" to crumbs of profits obtained by "their" national bourgeoisie from plundering foreign nations, from the advantages of its great-power position, etc.

The ideological-political content of opportunism and social-chauvinism is one and the same: class cooperation instead of struggle, renunciation of revolutionary means of struggle, assistance to "one's own" government in its difficult position instead of using its difficulties for revolution. If we take all European countries as a whole, if we pay attention not to individual persons (however authoritative), then it will turn out that precisely the opportunist tendency became the main bulwark of social-chauvinism, and from the camp of revolutionaries, almost everywhere comes a more or less consistent protest against it. And if we take, for example, the grouping of tendencies at the international socialist congress in Stuttgart in 1907, then it will turn out that international Marxism was against imperialism, while international opportunism was already for it.

## Unity with Opportunists Means Alliance of Workers with "Their Own" National Bourgeoisie and Split of the International Revolutionary Working Class

In the past epoch, before the war, opportunism was often considered, though an "deviation," an "extreme," but still a legitimate component part of the social-democratic party. The war showed the impossibility of this in the future. Opportunism "ripened," completed its role as emissary of the bourgeoisie in the workers' movement. Unity with opportunists has become sheer hypocrisy, an example of which we see in the German social-democratic party. Opportunists in all important cases (for example, when voting on August 4) come with their ultimatum, carrying it out through their numerous connections with the bourgeoisie, their majority in the management bodies of trade unions, etc. Unity with opportunists now means in reality the subjection of the working class to "their own" national bourgeoisie, alliance with it for the oppression of foreign nations and for the struggle for great-power privileges, being a split of the revolutionary proletariat of all countries.

However difficult in individual cases may be the struggle against the opportunists who dominate many organizations, however peculiar in individual countries may be the process of purifying workers' parties from opportunists, this process is inevitable and fruitful. Reformist socialism is dying; resurrecting socialism "will be revolutionary, uncompromising, insurrectionary," in the apt words of the French socialist Paul Golay{220}.

## "Kautskyism"

Kautsky, the greatest authority of the Second International, represents in the highest degree a typical and vivid example of how verbal recognition of Marxism led in practice to its transformation into "Struvism" or "Brentanism"{221}. We see this in the example of Plekhanov as well. From Marxism, its revolutionary living soul is hollowed out by patent sophisms; in Marxism they recognize everything, except for revolutionary means of struggle, their preaching and preparation, the education of the masses precisely in this direction. Kautsky blithely "reconciles" the basic idea of social-chauvinism, recognition of defense of the fatherland in this war, with a diplomatic, showy concession to the left in the form of abstention from voting on credits, verbal recognition of one's opposition, etc. Kautsky, who in 1909 wrote an entire book about the approaching epoch of revolutions and about the connection between war and revolution, Kautsky, who in 1912 signed the Basel Manifesto about the revolutionary use of the coming war, now in every way justifies and embellishes social-chauvinism and, like Plekhanov, joins the bourgeoisie in mocking any thought of revolution, any steps toward immediate revolutionary struggle.

The working class cannot accomplish its worldwide revolutionary role without waging merciless war against this renegadism, this spinelessness, this servility to opportunism, and this unprecedented theoretical degradation of Marxism. Kautskyism is not a chance occurrence, but a social product of the contradictions of the Second International, the combination of loyalty to Marxism in words and submission to opportunism in deed.

In different countries this fundamental falsity of "Kautskyism" manifests itself in different forms. In Holland, Roland-Holst, rejecting the idea of defense of the fatherland, upholds unity with the party of opportunists. In Russia, Trotsky, also rejecting this idea, equally upholds unity with the opportunist and chauvinist group "Our Dawn." In Romania, Rakovsky, declaring war on opportunism as the culprit of the collapse of the International, at the same time is ready to recognize the legitimacy of the idea of defense of the fatherland. All this is a manifestation of the evil which Dutch Marxists (Gorter, Pannekoek) called "passive radicalism" and which amounts to the substitution of revolutionary Marxism for eclecticism in theory and to servility or impotence before opportunism in practice.

## The Watchword of Marxists—The Watchword of Revolutionary Social-Democracy

War has undoubtedly generated the most acute crisis and aggravated the suffering of the masses incredibly. The reactionary character of this war, the shameless lies of the bourgeoisie of all countries, covering their plundering aims with "national" ideology, all this on the basis of an objectively revolutionary situation inevitably creates revolutionary sentiment among the masses. Our duty is to help become conscious of these sentiments, deepen and form them. This task is correctly expressed only by the watchword of transforming imperialist war into civil war, and every consistent class struggle during the war, every seriously conducted tactic of "mass action" inevitably leads to this. We cannot know whether in connection with the 1st or 2nd imperialist war of the great powers, during or after it, a powerful revolutionary movement will break out, but in any case our absolute duty is to work systematically and unwaveringly precisely in this direction.

The Basel Manifesto directly refers to the example of the Paris Commune, that is, the transformation of the war of governments into civil war. Half a century ago the proletariat was too weak, the objective conditions for socialism had not yet ripened, correspondence and support from revolutionary movements in all warring countries could not exist, the fascination of part of the Paris workers with "national ideology" (the tradition of 1792) was a petty-bourgeois weakness of theirs, timely noted by Marx, and one of the causes of the collapse of the Commune. Half a century after it, the conditions that then weakened the revolution have fallen away, and at present it is unforgivable for a socialist to reconcile himself to the refusal to act precisely in the spirit of the Paris communards.

## The Example of Fraternization in the Trenches

Bourgeois newspapers of all warring countries cited examples of fraternization of soldiers of warring nations even in the trenches. And the issuance by military authorities (Germany, England) of draconian decrees against such fraternization proved that governments and bourgeoisie attached serious significance to it. If, under the complete dominance of opportunism at the top of the social-democratic parties of Western Europe and under the support of social-chauvinism by the entire social-democratic press, by all the authorities of the Second International, there were cases of fraternization, this shows us how possible it would be to shorten the present criminal, reactionary, and slaveholding war and to organize a revolutionary international movement through systematic work in this direction by even just the leftist socialists of all warring countries.

## The Significance of Illegal Organization

The most prominent anarchists throughout the world have disgraced themselves no less than opportunists with social-chauvinism (in the spirit of Plekhanov and Kautsky) in this war. One of the useful results of it will undoubtedly be that this war will kill both opportunism and anarchism.

While in no case and under no circumstances refusing to use the slightest legal possibility for organizing the masses and preaching socialism, social-democratic parties must break with servility before legality. "Shoot first, gentlemen bourgeois," Engels wrote, alluding precisely to civil war and to the necessity for us to violate legality after the bourgeoisie has violated it. The crisis has shown that the bourgeoisie violates it in all, even the freest countries, and that one cannot lead masses toward revolution without creating an illegal organization for preaching, discussion, evaluation, preparation of revolutionary means of struggle. In Germany, for example, everything honest socialists do is done against vile opportunism and hypocritical "Kautskyism" and is done precisely illegally. In England, they are sent to hard labor for printed appeals not to join the army.

To consider compatible with belonging to a social-democratic party the denial of illegal methods of propaganda and mockery of them in the legal press is betrayal of socialism.

## On the Defeat of "One's Own" Government in Imperialist War

Defenders of the victory of their own government in this war, as well as defenders of the watchword "neither victory nor defeat," equally stand on the point of view of social-chauvinism. The revolutionary class in a reactionary war cannot but wish the defeat of its own government, cannot but see the connection between its military failures and the facilitation of its overthrow. Only the bourgeois, believing that the war begun by governments must inevitably end like a war between governments, and wishing this, finds "absurd" or "ridiculous" the idea that socialists of all warring countries should come forward with the wish for the defeat of all "their own" governments. On the contrary, precisely such action would correspond to the hidden thoughts of every conscious worker and would lie along the line of our activity directed toward transforming imperialist war into civil war.

Undoubtedly, serious agitation against the war by some English, German, Russian socialists "weakened the military might" of the respective governments, but such agitation was a credit to the socialists. Socialists must explain to the masses that there is no salvation for them outside the revolutionary overthrow of "their own" governments and that the difficulties of these governments in the present war must be used precisely for this purpose.

## On Pacifism and the Watchword of Peace

The sentiment of the masses in favor of peace often expresses the beginning of protest, indignation, and awareness of the reactionary character of the war. To use this sentiment is the duty of all social-democrats. They will take the most active part in every movement and every demonstration on this basis, but they will not deceive the people by allowing the thought that, in the absence of a revolutionary movement, peace is possible without annexations, without national oppression, without plunder, without the seeds of new wars between the present governments and ruling classes. Such deception of the people would only serve the secret diplomacy of the warring governments and their counter-revolutionary plans. Whoever wants lasting and democratic peace must stand for civil war against governments and bourgeoisie.

## On the Right of Nations to Self-Determination

The most widespread deception of the people by the bourgeoisie in this war is the covering of its plundering aims with "national-liberation" ideology. The English promise freedom to Belgium, the Germans to Poland, etc. In reality, as we have seen, this is a war of the oppressors of the majority of nations of the world for the strengthening and expansion of such oppression.

Socialists cannot achieve their great goal without struggling against every oppression of nations. Therefore, they absolutely must demand that social-democratic parties of the oppressing countries (the so-called "great" powers especially) recognize and uphold the right of oppressed nations to self-determination, and precisely in the political sense of the word, that is, the right to political separation. A socialist of a great-power or colony-owning nation who does not uphold this right is a chauvinist.

The upholding of this right not only does not encourage the formation of small states, but, on the contrary, leads to freer, fearless, and therefore broader and universal formation of larger and more advantageous states and unions between states for the masses and more corresponding to economic development.

Socialists of oppressed nations, for their part, must absolutely struggle for complete (including organizational) unity of the workers of oppressed and oppressing nationalities. The idea of legal separation of one nation from another (the so-called "cultural-national autonomy" of Bauer and Renner) is a reactionary idea.

Imperialism is the epoch of progressive oppression of the nations of the entire world by a handful of "great" powers, and therefore the struggle for socialist international revolution against imperialism is impossible without recognition of the right of nations to self-determination. "A nation that oppresses other nations cannot be free" (Marx and Engels). The proletariat cannot be socialist if it tolerates the slightest violence of "its own" nation against other nations.

# Chapter II. Classes and Parties in Russia

## The Bourgeoisie and War

In one respect the Russian government has not lagged behind its European brothers: just like them, it managed to carry out deception of "its own" people on a grandiose scale. An enormous, monstrous apparatus of lies and cunning schemes was set in motion in Russia as well to infect the masses with chauvinism, to create the impression that the tsarist government is waging a "just" war, disinterestedly defending "brother Slavs," etc.

The class of landowners and the upper strata of commercial-industrial bourgeoisie warmly supported the militant policy of the tsarist government. They justly expected for themselves enormous material advantages and privileges from the division of Turkish and Austrian inheritances. A whole series of their congresses have already anticipated the profits that would flow into their pockets upon the victory of the tsar's army. Moreover, reactionaries understand very well that if anything can postpone the fall of the Romanov monarchy and delay a new revolution in Russia, it is only a war victorious for the tsar.

Wide strata of urban "middle" bourgeoisie, bourgeois intelligentsia, persons of free professions, etc.—at least at the beginning of the war—were also infected with chauvinism. The party of Russian liberal bourgeoisie—the Kadets—fully and unconditionally supported the tsarist government. In matters of foreign policy, the Kadets have long been a government party. Pan-Slavism, through which tsarist diplomacy has more than once carried out its grandiose political swindles, became the official ideology of the Kadets. Russian liberalism has degenerated into national-liberalism. It competes in "patriotism" with the Black Hundred, always readily voting for militarism, navalism, etc. In the camp of Russian liberalism we observe approximately the same phenomenon as in Germany in the 1870s, when "free-thinking" liberalism disintegrated and produced a national-liberal party. Russian liberal bourgeoisie has finally taken the path of counter-revolution. The point of view of the RSDLP on this question has been completely confirmed. The view of our opportunists has been refuted by life itself, namely that Russian liberalism is still a driving force of revolution in Russia.

Among the peasantry, the ruling clique, through the aid of bourgeois press, clergy, etc., also managed to evoke a chauvinist sentiment. But, as soldiers return from the field of battle, the sentiment in the village will undoubtedly change not in favor of tsarist monarchy. The bourgeois-democratic parties, connected with the peasantry, could not withstand the chauvinist wave. The party of labor members refused in the State Duma to vote for military credits. But through the mouth of its leader Kerensky, it proclaimed a "patriotic" declaration, which came extremely opportunely for the monarchy. All the legal press of the "populists" generally followed the liberals. Even the left wing of bourgeois democracy—the so-called party of Socialist-Revolutionaries, affiliated with the International Socialist Bureau—floated in this same current. The representative of this party in the ISB, Mr. Rubanovich, comes forward as an open social-chauvinist. Half of the delegates of this party at the London Conference of socialists of "accord" voted for a chauvinist resolution (with the other half abstaining). In the illegal press of the Socialist-Revolutionaries (the newspaper "News"{222} and others) chauvinists predominate. "Revolutionaries" from the bourgeois milieu, that is, bourgeois revolutionaries not connected with the working class, suffered a terrible defeat in this war. The sad fate of Kropotkin, Burtsev, Rubanovich is extremely significant.

## The Working Class and War

The only class in Russia that the bourgeoisie failed to infect with chauvinism is the proletariat. Individual excesses at the beginning of the war affected only the darkest strata of workers. Worker participation in Moscow hooliganism against Germans was greatly exaggerated. On the whole, the Russian working class proved immunized against chauvinism.

This is explained by the revolutionary situation in the country and the general conditions of life of the Russian proletariat.

The years 1912–1914 marked the beginning of a new grandiose revolutionary upsurge in Russia. We again became witnesses to a great strike movement, the like of which the world does not know. A mass revolutionary strike drew into its vortex in 1913, by the most conservative estimates, 1.5 million participants, and in 1914 exceeded 2 million and approached the level of 1905. On the eve of the war in Petrograd matters had already come to the first barricade battles.

The illegal Russian Social-Democratic Workers' Party fulfilled its duty before the International. The banner of internationalism did not waver in its hands. Our party long ago severed organizational ties with opportunist groups and elements. The dead weight of opportunism and "legalism at any cost" was not on our party's feet. And this circumstance helped it fulfill its revolutionary duty—as it also helped our Italian comrades, who made a split with Bissolati's opportunist party.

The general situation in our country is hostile to the flourishing of "socialist" opportunism among the workers' masses. We see in Russia a whole series of shadings of opportunism and reformism among the intelligentsia, petty bourgeoisie, etc. But it is a tiny minority among the politically active strata of workers. The stratum of privileged workers and employees is very weak with us. Fetishism toward legality could not arise among us. The Liquidators (the party of opportunists led by Axelrod, Potresov, Cherevanin, Maslov, etc.) had before the war no serious support among the workers' masses. Elections to the Fourth State Duma gave all 6 worker-deputies opposed to Liquidationism. The circulation and monetary collections of legal workers' press in Petrograd and Moscow showed irrefutably that 4/5 of conscious workers opposed opportunism and Liquidationism.

At the start of the war, the tsarist government arrested and exiled thousands and thousands of advanced workers, members of our illegal RSDLP. This circumstance, along with the introduction of martial law in the country, the closure of our newspapers, etc., slowed the movement. But the illegal revolutionary work of our party continued nonetheless. In Petrograd the committee of our party publishes an illegal newspaper "Proletarian Voice"{223}.

Articles from the Central Organ "Social-Democrat," published abroad, are reprinted in Petrograd and distributed throughout the provinces. Illegal proclamations appear, which are distributed even in barracks. Outside the city, in various remote places, illegal meetings of workers take place. Recently in Petrograd major strikes of metalworker workers began. In connection with these strikes our Petrograd committee issued several appeals to workers.

## The Russian Social-Democratic Workers' Party Fraction in the State Duma and War

In 1913 a split occurred among the social-democratic deputies of the State Duma. On one side were 7 supporters of opportunism, led by Chkheidze. They were elected from 7 non-proletarian provinces, where the number of workers was 214 thousand. On the other side were 6 deputies, all from the workers' curia, elected from the most industrial centers of Russia, where 1,008 thousand workers were concentrated.

The main point of divergence was: the tactics of revolutionary Marxism or the tactics of opportunist reformism. In practice, the divergence showed itself most of all in the field of extra-parliamentary work among the masses. This work had to be conducted in Russia illegally if those conducting it wished to remain on revolutionary ground. Chkheidze's fraction remained the most loyal ally of the Liquidators, who rejected illegal work, and defended them in all conversations with workers, in all assemblies. Hence—the split. The 6 deputies formed the RSDLP Fraction. A year of work showed irrefutably that it was behind it that the overwhelming majority of Russian workers stood.

At the beginning of the war, the divergence became extraordinarily apparent. Chkheidze's faction limited itself to parliamentary ground. It did not vote for credits, because otherwise it would have provoked a storm of indignation from the workers. (We saw that in Russia even the petty-bourgeois Labor members did not vote for credits.) But it also did not express protest against social-chauvinism.

The RSDLP Fraction acted otherwise, expressing the political line of our party. It went with a protest against the war into the very midst of the working class, it carried the preaching against imperialism to the broad masses of Russian proletariat.

And it met very sympathetic response from the workers—which frightened the government and forced it, with a clear violation of its own laws, to arrest and try our comrade deputies to life exile on penal settlement in Siberia. In the very first official notification of the arrest of our comrades, the tsarist government wrote:

"A quite special position in this respect was occupied by certain members of social-democratic societies, who made it their aim to shake the military might of Russia through agitation against the war, by means of underground appeals and oral propaganda."

To the known call of Vandervelde to "temporarily" cease struggle against tsarism—now, from the testimony of the Russian envoy in Belgium, Prince Kudashev, it became known that Vandervelde drew up this call not alone, but in collaboration with the named Russian envoy—only our party, in the person of its CC, gave a negative answer. The leading center of the Liquidators agreed with Vandervelde and officially declared in the press that it "does not oppose the war in its activity."

The tsarist government first of all accused our comrade deputies of propagandizing this negative answer to Vandervelde among the workers.

The tsarist prosecutor, Mr. Nenarokov, at the trial held up German and French socialists as an example to our comrades. "German social-democrats," he said, "voted for military credits and proved themselves friends of the government. That is how German social-democrats acted, but not so acted the sad knights of Russian social-democracy… The socialists of Belgium and France together forgot their conflicts with other classes, forgot party squabbles and without hesitation took their place under the banners." But the members of the RSDLP Fraction, obeying the directives of the party's CC, did not act like that…

The trial revealed an impressive picture of extensive illegal agitation of our party among the proletarian masses against the war. The tsarist court, of course, managed to "discover" far from all the activity of our comrades in this field. But even what was discovered showed how much was accomplished in the short span of several months.

Illegal appeals of our groups and committees against the war and for international tactics were read at the trial. From conscious workers throughout Russia threads extended to the members of the RSDLP Fraction, and it did its best to help them evaluate the war from the point of view of Marxism.

Comrade Muranoff, a deputy from the workers of Kharkov Province, said at the trial:

"Understanding that I was sent by the people to the State Duma not to sit in a duma chair, I traveled to places to become acquainted with the sentiment of the working class." He also admitted at the trial that he took upon himself the functions of an illegal agitator of our party, that on the Urals he organized a workers' committee at the Upper-Iset Factory and in other places. The trial showed that members of the RSDLP Fraction, after the beginning of the war, traveled almost throughout Russia for purposes of propaganda, that Muranoff, Petrovsky, Badaev and others arranged numerous workers' meetings at which resolutions against the war, etc., were passed.

The tsarist government threatened the accused with capital punishment. In connection with this, not all of them spoke as courageously at the trial itself as our comrade Muranoff. They tried to make it difficult for tsarist prosecutors to condemn them. Russian social-chauvinists now use this unworthily to obscure the substance of the question: what kind of parliamentarism does the working class need?

Parliamentarism is recognized by Südekum with Heine, Samha with Vaillant, Bissolati with Mussolini, Chkheidze with Plekhanov. And parliamentarism is recognized by our comrades from the RSDLP Fraction, recognized by Bulgarian, Italian comrades who broke with the chauvinists. But one parliamentarism differs from another. Some use the parliamentary arena to curry favor with their own governments, or, at best, to wash their hands like Chkheidze's faction. Others use parliamentarism to remain revolutionaries to the end, to fulfill their duty as socialists and internationalists even under the most difficult circumstances. The parliamentary activity of some leads them to ministerial chairs, the parliamentary activity of others leads them—to prison, to exile, to hard labor. Some serve the bourgeoisie, others—the proletariat. Some are social-imperialists. Others are revolutionary Marxists.

# Chapter III. The Restoration of the International

## How to Restore the International? But—First a Few Words on How Not to Restore the International

## The Method of Social-Chauvinists and the "Center"

Oh, social-chauvinists of all countries are great "internationalists"! They have been burdened since the very beginning of the war with concern for the International. On the one hand, they assure us that talk of the collapse of the International is "exaggerated." Nothing special has really happened. Listen to Kautsky: simply the International is an "instrument of peacetime," naturally, during the period of war this instrument proved somewhat inadequate. On the other hand, social-chauvinists of all countries have found one very simple—and above all: international—means to get out of the situation created. The means is simple: one only needs to wait for the end of the war, until the end of the war socialists of each country should defend their "fatherland" and support "their own" governments, and after the end of the war—"amnesty" each other, acknowledge that all were right, that in peace we live like brothers, but in war on the basis of such-and-such resolutions we call on German workers to exterminate their French brothers and vice versa.

On this, Kautsky and Plekhanov, and Victor Adler, and Heine all equally agree. Victor Adler writes that "when we get through this difficult time, our first obligation will be not to rake up every iotas against each other"{224}. Kautsky asserts that "from no side so far has there been heard voices of serious socialists who would cause fear" for the fate of the International. Plekhanov says that "it is unpleasant to shake hands with German social-democrats smelling of the blood of the innocently killed." But then immediately proposes "amnesty": "here it would be quite appropriate," he writes, "for the heart to submit to Understanding. For its great cause the International will have to take into consideration even belated regrets." Heine calls Vandervelde's behavior in "Sozialistische Monatshefte" "courageous and proud" and holds him up as an example to German leftists{225}.

In short, when the war ends, appoint a commission of Kautsky and Plekhanov, Vandervelde and Adler, and a "unanimous" resolution in the spirit of mutual amnesty will be quickly drawn up. The dispute will be happily obscured. Instead of helping workers understand what happened, they will deceive them with showy paper "unity." The unification of social-chauvinists and hypocrites of all countries will be called the restoration of the International.

It must not be hidden from ourselves: the danger of such "restoration" is very great. Social-chauvinists of all countries are equally interested in it. All equally do not want the workers' masses of their countries themselves to understand the question: socialism or nationalism. All equally are interested in covering up each other's sins. All they can offer is nothing other than what Kautsky, the virtuoso of "international" hypocrisy, proposes.

And meanwhile, few understand this danger. Over a year of war we have seen a series of attempts to restore international connections. We will not speak of conferences in London and Vienna, where certain chauvinists gathered to help the general staffs and bourgeoisie of their "homelands." We have in mind conferences in Lugano, in Copenhagen{226}, an international women's conference and an international youth conference{227}. These gatherings were animated by the best intentions. But they completely failed to see the indicated danger. They did not mark out a fighting line for internationalists. They did not point out to the proletariat the danger threatening it from the social-chauvinist method of "restoring" the International. They, at best, limited themselves to repeating old resolutions, without pointing out to workers that without struggle against social-chauvinists the cause of socialism is hopeless. They, at best, were a step in place.

## The Situation Among the Opposition

There is no doubt that the situation among the German social-democratic opposition is of greatest interest to all internationalists. Official German social-democracy, which was the most powerful and leading party in the Second International, delivered the most sensitive blow to the international organization of workers. But in German social-democracy there was at the same time the most powerful opposition. Of the major European parties, it was first that comrades raised a loud voice of protest, remaining faithful to the banner of socialism. We read with joy the journals "Lichtstrahlen" and "Die Internationale." We learned with even greater joy about the distribution in Germany of illegal revolutionary appeals, like the appeal "The Main Enemy is in One's Own Country." This testified that the spirit of socialism lives among German workers, that in Germany there are still people capable of upholding revolutionary Marxism.

Within German social-democracy, the split in contemporary socialism appeared most vividly. We see here with complete clarity three currents: opportunist-chauvinists, which nowhere reached such a degree of fall and renegadism as in Germany; Kautskian "center," which showed itself here to be completely helpless in playing any other role except servant to the opportunists; and—the Left, representing the only true social-democrats in Germany.

We are naturally most interested in the situation within the German left. We see in it our comrades, the hope of all internationalist elements.

What is this situation?

The journal "Die Internationale" was absolutely right when it said that within the German left everything is still in a process of fermentation, that great regroupings lie ahead, that within its bosom there are elements more decisive and less decisive.

We, Russian internationalists, certainly do not in the least presume to interfere in the internal affairs of our German leftist comrades. We understand that only they themselves are fully competent to determine their methods of struggle against opportunists, taking into account the conditions of time and place. We believe only that it is our right and our duty to express frankly our opinion on the situation.

We are convinced that the author of the leading article in the journal "Die Internationale" was profoundly right when he asserted that the Kautskian "center" causes more harm to the cause of Marxism than open social-chauvinism. Whoever now obscures the disagreements, whoever preaches to workers in the guise of Marxism what Kautskyism preaches, puts workers to sleep, does more harm than Südekum and Heine, who pose the question squarely and force workers to understand it.

The fault-finding against "authorities," which Kautsky and Haase have of late permitted themselves, should not deceive anyone. The disagreements between them and the Scheidemanns are not principled disagreements. Some think that Hindenburg and Mackensen have already won and that now we can afford the luxury of protest against annexations. Others think that Hindenburg and Mackensen have not yet won and therefore we must "hold out to the end."

Kautskyism wages only a show struggle against the "authorities"—precisely in order to obscure before workers after the war the principled dispute and gloss over the matter with 1001 plump resolutions in vaguely "left" spirit, for which such masters of diplomatic skill among the Second International exist.

It is fully understandable that in its difficult struggle against the "authorities," the German opposition must use this unprincipled faultfinding of Kautskyism. But the touchstone for every internationalist must remain negative attitude toward neo-Kautskyism. Only he is a true internationalist who struggles against Kautskyism, who understands that the "center" remains, even after the feigned turnaround of its leaders, in a principled sense an ally of chauvinists and opportunists.

Our attitude to vacillating elements in the International as a whole is of enormous importance. These elements—predominantly pacifist-minded socialists—exist both in neutral countries and in some warring countries (in England, for example, the Independent Labour Party). These elements can be our fellow-travelers. Drawing closer to them against social-chauvinists is necessary. But one must remember that these are only fellow-travelers, that on the main and fundamental points, in the restoration of the International, these elements will go not with us, but against us, will go with Kautsky, Scheidemann, Vandervelde, Samha. At international meetings one cannot limit one's program to what is acceptable to these elements. Otherwise we ourselves fall into the captivity of vacillating pacifists. This happened, for example, at the women's international conference in Bern. The German delegation, adhering to the point of view of Comrade Clara Zetkin, in fact played the role of "center" at this conference. The women's conference said only what was acceptable to delegates from the opportunist Dutch party of Troelstra and to delegates from the I.L.P. (Independent Labour Party), which—let us not forget this—at the London conference of socialists of "accord" voted for Vandervelde's resolution. We express our greatest respect for the I.L.P. for its courageous struggle against the English government during the war. But we know that this party did not and does not stand on the basis of Marxism. And we believe that the main task of social-democratic opposition at the present moment is—to raise the banner of revolutionary Marxism, to say to workers firmly and clearly how we view imperialist wars, to put forward the watchword of mass revolutionary action, that is, the transformation of the epoch of imperialist wars into the beginning of the epoch of civil wars. Revolutionary social-democratic elements, despite everything, exist in many countries. They exist both in Germany and in Russia and in Scandinavia (an influential tendency, represented by Comrade Höglund) and on the Balkans (the party of Bulgarian "narrow ones") and in Italy and in England (part of the British Socialist Party) and in France (Vaillant himself admitted in "L'Humanité" that he received protesting letters from internationalists, but he did not print a single one in full) and in Holland (the Tribunists{228}) and so forth. To unite these Marxist elements—however few they may be at first—in their name to remind of the now-forgotten words of genuine socialism, to call on workers of all countries to break with chauvinists and take up the old banner of Marxism—this is the task of the day.

Meetings with so-called programs of "action" have so far amounted only to proclaiming more or less fully the program of simple pacifism. Marxism is not pacifism. To struggle for the earliest possible ending of the war is necessary. But only with an appeal to revolutionary struggle does the demand for "peace" acquire proletarian meaning. Without a series of revolutions, the so-called democratic peace is petty-bourgeois utopia. The only genuine program of action would be a Marxist program, giving the masses a complete and clear answer to what has happened, explaining what imperialism is and how to struggle against it, declaring openly that opportunism brought the Second International to collapse, calling openly to build a Marxist International without and against opportunists. Only such a program, which would show that we believe in ourselves, believe in Marxism, declare a fight to the death against opportunism, would ensure us sooner or later the sympathy of genuine proletarian masses.

## The Russian Social-Democratic Workers' Party and the Third International

The RSDLP has long since split from its opportunists. Russian opportunists have now become chauvinists as well. This only strengthens us in the conviction that the split with them is necessary in the interests of socialism. We are convinced that the current divergences of social-democrats with social-chauvinists are in no way less than those of socialists with anarchists were, when social-democrats split with the latter. The opportunist Monitor in "Preußische Jahrbücher" rightly said that for opportunists and the bourgeoisie the present unity is profitable, for it forces the left to submit to chauvinists and prevents workers from understanding the disputes and creating their own truly workers', truly socialist party. We are deeply convinced that under the present circumstances split with opportunists and chauvinists is the first duty of a revolutionary—just as split with the yellow, with antisemites, with liberal workers' unions, etc. was necessary precisely in the interests of quickest enlightenment of backward workers and bringing them into the ranks of the social-democratic party.

A Third International, in our opinion, should have been created precisely on such a revolutionary basis. For our party there is no question of the expediency of a break with social-chauvinists. It is irrevocably decided for it. For it there exists only the question of the feasibility of this in the nearest future on an international scale.

It is perfectly understandable that for the creation of an international Marxist organization, there must exist a readiness for the creation of independent Marxist parties in different countries. Germany, as the country of the oldest and strongest workers' movement, is of decisive importance. The near future will show whether conditions have already ripened for the creation of a new Marxist International. If yes, our party will with joy enter such a Third International, cleansed of opportunism and chauvinism. If no, this will show that longer or shorter evolution is still required for this cleansing. And then our party will be the extreme opposition within the former International—until the basis is created in various countries for an international workers' fellowship standing on the basis of revolutionary Marxism.

We do not know and cannot know how development will proceed in the coming years on the international arena. But what we know for certain, in what we are unshakably convinced, is that our party in our country among our proletariat will work tirelessly in the indicated direction and through all its daily activity will create the Russian section of a Marxist International.

In Russia too there is no shortage of open social-chauvinists and groups of "center." These people will fight against the creation of a Marxist International. We know that Plekhanov stands on one principled basis with Südekum and is already extending his hand to him. We know that the so-called "Organizational Committee," led by Axelrod, preaches Kautskyism on Russian soil. Under the guise of unity of the working class, these people preach unity with opportunists and through them—with the bourgeoisie. But everything that we know about the present state of the workers' movement in Russia gives us complete confidence that conscious Russian proletariat will remain with our party as before.

# Chapter IV. The History of the Split and the Present Condition of Social-Democracy in Russia

The tactics of the RSDLP toward the war, expounded above, represents an inevitable result of thirty years of development of social-democracy in Russia. One cannot properly understand this tactic, as well as the present condition of social-democracy in our country, without pondering the history of our party. That is why we must also here remind the reader of the fundamental facts from this history.

As an ideological tendency, social-democracy arose in 1883, when the "Liberation of Labor" group first systematically expounded social-democratic views abroad in application to Russia{229}. Until the early 1890s, social-democracy remained an ideological tendency, without connection to the mass workers' movement in Russia. In the early 1890s, a social upsurge, fermentation, and strike movement among workers made social-democracy an active political force, inseparably connected with the struggle (both economic and political) of the working class. And from this same time begins the split of social-democracy into "Economists" and "Iskrists."

## "Economists" and the Old "Iskra" (1894–1903)

"Economism" was an opportunist tendency in Russian social-democracy. Its political essence came down to the program: "to workers—economic struggle, to liberals—political struggle." Its main theoretical support was the so-called "legal Marxism" or "Struvism," which "recognized" Marxism, completely purged of all revolutionism and adapted to the needs of liberal bourgeoisie. Referring to the underdevelopment of the mass of workers in Russia, wishing to "go with the masses," the "Economists" limited the tasks and scope of the workers' movement to economic struggle and political support of liberalism, without setting themselves any independent political tasks or any revolutionary tasks. The old "Iskra" (1900–1903) victoriously waged a struggle against "Economism" in the name of the principles of revolutionary social-democracy. The entire flowering of conscious proletariat took the side of "Iskra." Years before the revolution, social-democracy came forward with the most consistent and uncompromising program. And the class struggle, the actions of the masses during the 1905 revolution confirmed this program. The "Economists" adapted themselves to the backwardness of the masses. "Iskra" educated the vanguard of workers, capable of leading the masses forward. The present arguments of social-chauvinists (about the need to consider the masses, about the progressiveness of imperialism, about the "illusions" of revolutionaries, etc.) were all already advanced by the "Economists." With opportunist reworking of Marxism into "Struvism," Russian social-democracy made acquaintance 20 years ago.

## Menshevism and Bolshevism (1903–1908)

The epoch of the bourgeois-democratic revolution gave birth to a new struggle of tendencies within social-democracy, which was a direct continuation of the previous one. "Economism" transformed itself into "Menshevism." The defense of the revolutionary tactics of the old "Iskra" created "Bolshevism."

In the turbulent years of 1905–1907, Menshevism was an opportunist tendency which was supported by liberal bourgeois and which pursued liberal-bourgeois tendencies in the workers' movement. Adaptation of the workers' class struggle to liberalism—in this lay its essence. On the contrary, Bolshevism set as its task for social-democratic workers to raise democratic peasantry to revolutionary struggle against the shakiness and betrayals of liberalism. And the workers' masses, as the Mensheviks themselves repeatedly acknowledged, went with the Bolsheviks during the revolution in all the major actions.

The 1905 revolution tested, strengthened, deepened and tempered the uncompromisingly revolutionary social-democratic tactic in Russia. Open action by classes and parties repeatedly revealed the connection of social-democratic opportunism ("Menshevism") with liberalism.

## Marxism and Liquidationism (1908–1914)

The counter-revolutionary epoch in a completely new form again placed on the agenda the question of opportunist and revolutionary tactics of social-democracy. The main current of Menshevism, despite protests by many of its best representatives, gave birth to the tendency of Liquidationism, renunciation of the struggle for a new revolution in Russia, from illegal organization and work, contemptuous mockery of the "underground," the watchword of the republic, etc. In the person of the group of legal literati of the journal "Our Dawn" (Messrs. Potresov, Cherevanin, etc.) there crystallized a nucleus independent of the old social-democratic party, which in thousands of ways was supported, advertised and cherished by the liberal bourgeoisie of Russia, wishing to wean workers from revolutionary struggle.

The January Conference of the RSDLP in 1912 expelled this group of opportunists from the party, which restored the party despite fierce resistance by a whole series of foreign groups and grouplets. For more than two years (beginning of 1912—mid-1914) there was stubborn struggle of two social-democratic parties: the CC, elected in January 1912, and the "Organizational Committee," which did not recognize the January Conference and wanted to restore the party differently, preserving unity with the group "Our Dawn." Stubborn struggle proceeded between two daily workers' newspapers ("Pravda" and "Luch"{230} with their successors) and between two social-democratic fractions of the Fourth State Duma (the "RSDLP Fraction" of the "Pravdists" or Marxists and the "social-democratic faction" of the Liquidators with Chkheidze at their head).

Upholding loyalty to the revolutionary heritage of the party, supporting the beginning upsurge of the workers' movement (especially after spring 1912), combining legal and illegal organization, press and agitation, the "Pravdists" rallied around themselves the overwhelming majority of the conscious working class, while the Liquidators—acting as a political force exclusively in the person of the "Our Dawn" group—relied on all-round support of liberal-bourgeois elements.

Open monetary contributions by workers' groups to the newspapers of both parties, being in that epoch adapted to Russian conditions (and the only legally permitted form, freely controlled by all) form of social-democratic membership fees, clearly confirmed the proletarian source of strength and influence with the "Pravdists" (Marxists), liberal-bourgeois with the Liquidators (and their "OC"). Here are the brief data on these contributions, printed in detail in the book "Marxism and Liquidationism"{231}, and in abbreviated form in the German social-democratic newspaper "Leipzig People's Newspaper"{232} of July 21, 1914.

Number and sum of contributions to daily Petrograd newspapers, Marxist ("Pravdist") and Liquidator, from January 1 to May 13, 1914:

[Table with contribution data]

Thus our party by 1914 united 4/5 of conscious workers of Russia around revolutionary social-democratic tactics. Throughout 1913 the number of contributions from workers' groups was